Yeah it was a tasteless comment. It's not good form to speak ill of the dead. Let sleeping dogs lie. Even the bible says something like that:
"Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." -James 4:11 (KJV)
To answer your question and speak to the subject matter in the most mundane and academic sense possible, it was focusing in on YT's having become well-known for its level of having turned to political correctness (part and parcel of advertiser friendliness perhaps) in the form of changes in community standards, terms of service, and anti-mis-and-disinfo policies seen by strict free-speech advocates (and some other groups) as especially onerous and undesirable. Officially, the privately owned [but publicly traded] company can do that, and the matter even was decided upon by the United States Supreme Court recently. Although, it is also officially the case that much of this kind of selective information permissibility was indeed government-suggested, which does raise more questions about kosherness. Further, what could potentially be seen as the recursive externalization and deferral of responsibility (arguably for political, social, or economic reasons) rather than acknowledging and taking on hard tasks is a related moral issue (requiring tremendous courage given the scenario, and perhaps an academic rigor and breadth and depth of capacity not commonly found anywhere, anyway). These are the unsavory matters that many ivory armchair critics of the past, present, and future may sadly think of regarding the past several years of YT in particular (though really many observers were acutely aware of them over the last 10 years or so as a progression), and naturally a topmost corporate face is seen as having been some kind of responsible decision-maker (regardless of the truth of the matter).
Instead, those critics could be making better technological and sociological solutions, and educating, and admitting that people are imperfect and can all do their best. Instead of criticizing others.
Agreed Youtube is still my goto platform for entertainment and it is not a total cesspool like X - she left behind a great legacy never mind the fake controversies stoked by some content creators to get clicks.
There is always Kick and Rumble if you did not like it.
Censorship platforms do not benefit society. They benefit the censors and shareholders. Nobody reaps benefit from other people deciding what they shouldn’t be able to watch.
It's remarkably easy to think of examples that disprove that claim. First one to pop into my head was 'how to make bathroom cleaner at home with bleach and alcohol'